State of Maine v. Chuck D. Schooley

Summary

The court affirmed Schooley’s convictions, holding that the unpreserved absence of a specific-unanimity instruction was plain error but did not affect his substantial rights because the case turned on whether the jury believed the victim’s account of a consistent pattern of abuse. The court also concluded that some prosecutorial comments improperly suggested personal belief in the victim’s credibility, but the comments did not constitute obvious error warranting relief when considered with the entire trial and the court’s instructions.